July 28, 2012

Complex Y chromosome structure in East Tyrol (and more IE thoughts)

Cultural diversity can disappear in a few generations, but genetic diversity -barring major genocides or disasters- usually persists.

The East Tyrol region in Austria has been Germanic-speaking since the Middle Ages, but historical evidence documents the presence of Romance, Germanic, and Slavic groups in its territory. How can we untangle the origin of the different groups when they are all jumbled up together now, and all Germanic-speaking? Previous research has shown that patrilineal groups can be isolated on the basis of surnames, but in the case of East Tyrol, the wide adoption of surnames happened after the region had become linguistically Germanic.

The authors of the new paper exploited the structure of local toponyms, in particular pasture names. The figure on the left shows the concentrations of Slavic (panel A), Romance (panel B), and Germanic (panel C) pasture names. While Germanic pasture names are evenly distributed, there is a contrast between those of Slavic and Romance origin. From the paper:

From the 853 analyzed pasture names in East Tyrol 71% were derived from Germanic (Bavarian) etymons, 17% from Slavic etymons, and 12% from Romance etymons. While pasture names with Germanic etymons were evenly distributed in high density within the whole study area the names with Slavic etymons were spatially focused in the east and north of East Tyrol (Fig. 2). Geographically, these are the lower Drau, Isel, Kals, Virgen and the Defereggen valleys (Fig. 1). No names with Slavic etymons were found in the southwestern Puster valley (Fig. 2). The pasture names with Romance etymons focus mainly in the southern part of East Tyrol (Gail, Puster, and Villgraten valley, Fig. 2). The slight northeastward trend observed in the distribution of Romance etymons is solely caused by the Kals valley, a medieval Romance linguistic enclave, which was separated from the Romance main territory in the 10th century [36]. On the basis of these results, East Tyrol was divided into two regions of former Romance (Puster, Gail, and Villgraten valley; region A) and Slavic (Isel, lower Drau, Defereggen, Virgen, and Kals valley; region B) main settlement (Fig. 2).

The authors dissected the occurrence of different haplogroups in the two contrasting regions (A: Romance, and B: Slavic) in some great detail:

Splitting the East Tyrolean population sample into regions A and B resulted in a partitioning of haplogroups E-M78, R-M17, R-M412/S167*, and R-S116*. E-M78, R-M17 and R-S116* Y chromosomes were exclusively found in region B whereas samples assigned to R-M412/S167*, R-U106/S21, and R-U152/S28 reached higher frequencies in region A (Fig. 3, Table S7). When attributing the samples to the fathers' and grandfathers' places of birth/residence, as reported by the participants, practically identical patterns were obtained for most of the haplogroups (Fig. 3).

Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroups G-P15, I-M253, and J-M304 showed much lower regionalization in their frequencies (Fig. 3) at all three generation levels.

The non-localization of the G-P15, I-M253, and J-M304 seems reasonable as these may represent what is common in these populations (and one could indeed speculate -on the basis of current ancient DNA knowledge- that they correspond to Neolithic, Paleolithic, and Bronze Age processes respectively)

Two of the most interesting findings are:

Haplogroup R-M412/S167* was found at low frequencies in the combined East Tyrolean sample. However, the R-M412/S167* chromosomes were sorted by the subdivision of the study area and reached in region A levels of ~14% whereas their frequency in region B was well below the 5% threshold. At the probands and fathers level of analysis region A featured approximately fourfold higher frequencies of these chromosomes than region B. This ratio changed to about nine when placing the samples at the grandfathers' places of birth/residence. These contrasts remained statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons [22] at the fathers and grandfathers analysis level.

and:

The western border of the geographic expansion of haplogroup R-M17 Y chromosomes is to be found in Central Europe and largely follows the political border separating present-day Poland (57%) and Germany (East: ~30%, South: ~14%, West: ~10%) [42]. Frequencies of about 15% and 10% were also found for Austria [18] and North-East Italy [48], respectively. In South Italy and in West Europe R-M17 chromosomes are not present at informative frequencies.

In this study, the proportion of Y chromosomes carrying the derived M17 allele was 14.1%, a value that nearly perfectly matched those reported for West Austria (North Tyrol, 15.4%) and South Germany (Munich; 14.3%) [18], [42]. However, haplogroup R-M17 was completely absent in the East Tyrolean sub-sample from region A, but made up to 16% in region B. This result remained practically unchanged when assigning the probands to their respective fathers' or grandfathers' places of birth/residence (Fig. 3).

The new study reinforces my belief that R-M17 was not originally present in the Italo-Celtic branch of Indo-European. Together with the paucity of the same lineage in Albanians (~5%), Armenians (less than 5%), and its quite uneven distribution in Greeks, it is becoming increasingly clear that R-M17 may represent a late entrant that affected minimally southern and western Europe.

The fountain of its spread was probably a trans-Caspian (?) Central Asian staging point that followed a counter-clockwise route into Europe that spawned the northern (Germanic and Balto-Slavic) groups of Europe and the Indo-Iranians, who remained longer in their BMAC homeland, finally breaking down during the 2nd millennium BC. This would also harmonize with the increasing evidence for complementary R-M17 distributions in Europe and Asia, associated with the Z93 marker.

It might appear that Z93+ chromosomes may track the later expansion of the Indo-Iranian world. I have observed before that R-M17 seems distributed in a long arc north and east of the Caspian, and it is perhaps in different points along this arc that the dominant European (NW) and Asian (SE) types emerged out of the early Neolithic population.

Combining this insight with an analysis of Y chromosome variation within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan group, it appears that Graeco-Armenian is characterized predominantly by J2+R1b related lineages, while Indo-Iranian by J2+R1a related lineages. The evidence for Tocharian would involve J2+R1b related lineages. Overall, it would appear that the earliest J2 core of PIE affected two different groups of populations living on complementary sides of the Caspian:

The trans-Caspian R-M17 population followed an early (3rd, or late 4th millennium BC?) north-west trajectory into Europe (associated with northern European groups such as Balto-Slavic and Germanic) as well as a later expansion (2nd millennium BC? associated with climatic deterioration in BMAC) that brought Iranian speakers to the steppe, as well as to Iran, and Indo-Aryans to South Asia.

The cis-Caspian, trans-Caucasian R-M269 population followed an early (late 4th millennium, early 3rd millennium?) expansion into Europe, probably together with J2 in the Balkans (Graeco-Phrygian, perhaps Thracian), and arriving in the form of Bell Beakers in Western Europe (Italo-Celtic), as well as a later (2nd-1st millennium BC?) expansion to the east (Tocharians)

This long excursus was necessary as a preamble to an explanation on what happened in Europe itself, which brings us back to the topic of the current paper:

The lack of structure between regions A and B with respect to haplogroup J, together with the great difference in levels of this haplogroup between Italy and the Celtic world, suggests that Italian J-related lineages may have been inflated in proto-historical and historical times. There are candidates a-plenty: Greeks, Etruscans, Trojans to name but three. Excess of J in Italy, relative to the Celtic world, clearly relates to the abundant traditions of eastern origins for the historical groups of Italy.

It would appear that during proto-history, most of Europe was dominated by three sets of IE people (R-M269 in the west, who had transmitted Proto-Celto-Italic; R-M17 in the northeast of Proto-Balto-Slavic speech, and Proto-Germanic in-between, participating in both worlds, and --appropriately-- often linked with either Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic linguistically)

There were other (now-extinct) groups as well: the Illyrians vs. Thracians in the Balkans with complementary Y chromosome distributions, the former including an extra chunk of aboriginal legacy (haplogroup I), no doubt due to the much more difficult terrain of the western Balkans. These are contrasted with our final group, the Greeks who straddled three worlds (the Paleo-Mediterranean world of the first farmers, the Thraco-Phrygian world linked to the Indo-Iranians at a deeper level, and the Anatolian world)

The boundaries between these various groups were a little blurred in the course of history. But, apparently, they were still a little clearer during the Middle Ages, and probably much clearer before the Völkerwanderung of the Germans, and the expansion of the Slavs.

Geneticists are executing a remarkable pincer movement, zeroing in on the period of European ethnogenesis from both the remote past and the present: through a study of ancient DNA from the dawn of history, they are beginning to understand how Europe was peopled, layer after layer of settlement; and through the study of surnames and toponyms they are drilling ever deeper into the pre-genealogical past. Together with much anticipated technological progress related to full genome sequencing and ancient DNA extraction, it will not be long before the history of Europe will be laid bare in remarkable detail.

The small alpine district of East Tyrol (Austria) has an exceptional demographic history. It was contemporaneously inhabited by members of the Romance, the Slavic and the Germanic language groups for centuries. Since the Late Middle Ages, however, the population of the principally agrarian-oriented area is solely Germanic speaking. Historic facts about East Tyrol's colonization are rare, but spatial density-distribution analysis based on the etymology of place-names has facilitated accurate spatial mapping of the various language groups' former settlement regions. To test for present-day Y chromosome population substructure, molecular genetic data were compared to the information attained by the linguistic analysis of pasture names. The linguistic data were used for subdividing East Tyrol into two regions of former Romance (A) and Slavic (B) settlement. Samples from 270 East Tyrolean men were genotyped for 17 Y-chromosomal microsatellites (Y-STRs) and 27 single nucleotide polymorphisms (Y-SNPs). Analysis of the probands' surnames revealed no evidence for spatial genetic structuring. Also, spatial autocorrelation analysis did not indicate significant correlation between genetic (Y-STR haplotypes) and geographic distance. Haplogroup R-M17 chromosomes, however, were absent in region A, but constituted one of the most frequent haplogroups in region B. The R-M343 (R1b) clade showed a marked and complementary frequency distribution pattern in these two regions. To further test East Tyrol's modern Y-chromosomal landscape for geographic patterning attributable to the early history of settlement in this alpine area, principal coordinates analysis was performed. The Y-STR haplotypes from region A clearly clustered with those of Romance reference populations and the samples from region B matched best with Germanic speaking reference populations. The combined use of onomastic and molecular genetic data revealed and mapped the marked structuring of the distribution of Y chromosomes in an alpine region that has been culturally homogeneous for centuries.

39 comments:

...most of Europe was dominated by three sets of IE people (R-M269 in the west, who had transmitted Proto-Celto-Italic; R-M17 in the northeast of Proto-Balto-Slavic speech, and Proto-Germanic in-between, participating in both worlds, and --appropriately-- often linked with either Italo-Celtic or Balto-Slavic linguistically)

There is way too much to digest and to comment on in short time, here - but:

* I think your comment above is correct for the younger subgroups (e.g., Slavic expansion ~500-800 AD), but the background haplogroups were set like that much, much earlier;

* I think you are way off in the timing, by a few to several millennia in some cases, more in others;

Völkerwanderung may have played a much lesser role than some make it out to be.

BMAC don't seem to fit with Indo-iranian, it's a to recent branch to be the result of agriculturalists from that area where agriculture is a local phenomenon (it's given as one of several reasons why BMAcC doesn't work according to Mallory), their root in near-eastern agriculture seem to be quite old apparently. It would also fit well with the correlation of R1a1a with Indo-iranian, just look at Kurdistan on the map (as example the Zaza Kurds are more than 25% R1a1a while this male lineage is rather rare in this region, in all their neighbors (Nasidze et al. 2005)), even if they likely carried also other lineages at this point.

Beside culturally it doesn't seem to fit (the Avesta and Rigveda content doesn't seem to fit w/ this culture, while the Andronovo horizon fits pretty well, culturally and archeologically and there are also some linguistic clues (i.e. East of the Ural mountains you have Indic loanwords words related to pastoralism and chariotry (e.g. Hungarian tehen (cow) -> Sankrit dhenu (compare w/ Avestan dainu), Hungarian tei (milk) -> Hindi dhai, Kashmiri dai from sanskrit dadhi, etc... (no Iranic matches), Hungarian szeker (carriage) -> Hindi sagar, Bihari sagar (from a Sanskrit sakata or a composed saka-ra - no Iranic matches), or also Komi dom (briddle), Udmurt dum -> Sanskrit daman (rope) (no Iranic matches), or also Finnish and Ostya udar, Mordvin Odar and Mari wodar (udder) -> Sanskrit udhar (no Iranic matches either apparently), among many other Indo-aryan loanwords. I guess i can also add Finno-ugric *kekrä from proto-indo-iranian čekro (BTW Uralic also took "Arya" and "Asura" as ancient loanwords (D. Anthony's book, p. 385)). The most logical explanation is that they got it from the pastoralist populations just south of them, where we also have the most ancient found chariot so far).

As a matter of fact, the fortresses of the BMAC seem to fit quite well with the Fortresses conquered by the Aryas (recollected in the Rig-Veda) while no such buildings apparently exist in north-west India.

All this agriculturalist thing Indo-europeanizing everyone on their way (but somehow not spreading their own culture, as the typical cultural IE pack don't seem to fit with these type of populations) doesn't seem to work well (For instance, all these BMAC people migrating to Andronovo (and living no material cultural tracks in archeology showing a link with the BMAC (while inputs from the steppes are apparently seen in BMAC) and imposing their language, including the words related to pastoralism and horse (not particularly prominent in BMAC) to the largely pastoralist population of Andronovo (apparently some agriculture existed (read in Kuz'mina and Lebedinsky) in parts of the Andronovo horizon), it sounds like sci-fi to me)).

"The non-localization of the G-P15, I-M253, and J-M304 seems reasonable as these may represent what is common in these populations (and one could indeed speculate -on the basis of current ancient DNA knowledge- that they correspond to Neolithic, Paleolithic, and Bronze Age processes respectively)"

Isn't this region where the Rhaetic language was spoken? It was a language related to Etruscan (said to be part of a Tyrsenian language family with tracks in the Egean island of Lemnos). Aren't there a particularly high number of J lineage in the core of the former Etruscan territory compared the neighboring Italian regions? Etruscan is thought to arrive during bronze age so it could fit with at least J2.

Finally, if you accept that the spreading of IE at the PIE stage is the fact of populations dominated by completely different male haplogroups, I don't see why this couldn't be true for other theories (not putting J2 as the source of it).

"The evidence for Tocharian would involve J2+R1b related lineages"

Or maybe the Sakas brought most of the J2 and the asian R1b flavor (but also some R2 and the "west asian component, and also some R1a) in the Tarim via the west and the North, where they are known to have been. While proto-Tocharian was brought from the north by south Siberian R1a1a populations. I already know your answer on that one, and you already know mine.

Etruscan is thought to arrive during bronze age so it could fit with at least J2.

There is no link between J2 and Etruscan; J2 is a much wider phenomenon.

Or maybe the Sakas brought most of the J2 and the asian R1b flavor (but also some R2 and the "west asian component, and also some R1a) in the Tarim via the west and the North, where they are known to have been. While proto-Tocharian was brought from the north by south Siberian R1a1a populations.

There is nor reason to think that R1b was originally Indo-Iranian, due to its paucity in Indo-Aryans.

There is also no reason to assign R1a to "Tocharians" and R1b to "Saka". The J2+R1b is consistent with both the Western/Anatolian linguistic links of the Tocharians and the presence of a rich agricultural vocabulary in them. It would also neatly explain why they would be different from Iranian groups (R1a vs. R1b contrast).

BMAC don't seem to fit with Indo-iranian

Its excavator thinks otherwise.

it's a to recent branch to be the result of agriculturalists from that area where agriculture is a local phenomenon

You missed the part where BMAC was Indo-Europeanized from the Near East: You got J2 (the only common thread within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan clade) forking into J2+R1b and J2+R1a; the latter is associated with Indo-Iranians and plausibly happened when Indo-Europeans affected the R1a trans-Caspian agriculturalists.

You are also wrong on Andronovo for a variety of reasons, the most important of these being that it is a conflation of two cultures of different origin (Fedorovo and Alakul). The Sintashta-Petrovka-Alakul associated with intensive metallurgy should not be confused with the Fedorovo group.

"There is no link between J2 and Etruscan; J2 is a much wider phenomenon."

Both things are not mutually exclusive I think, especially since different J2 lineages spreaded in Eurasia or even within Europe, for that matter.

"There is also no reason to assign R1a to "Tocharians" and R1b to "Saka" "

I never associated Sakas and R1b, I primarily see them with R1a1a then J2, it's just that some different tribes were likely carriers of lineages reflecting the diversity of central Asia, especially the south of it (which included R2 and possibly some of those specific R1b lineages (the Hazaras of central Afghanistan have a sizble % of this R1b flavor IIRC, for instance)))

"J2 (the only common thread within the Graeco-Armeno-Aryan clade)"

It can also be explained otherwise. Armenian is likely coming from south-east europe (and modern Armenians do have south-east european male lineages in little quantity) and the ancestral homeland of this grouping is likely not in Anatolia, IMHO.

Italians of the Roman period DID spread mythologies that their ancestors came from the East. But only when they conquered the Greek world and found an incredibly sophisticated culture, a culture to which the Italians had to justify their dominance. Hence the mythologies: Fear not Greeks, for we are descended from Trojans.

Those same mythologies / authors also included divine descent and animist portents. IE, it's not common to find a passage that reads: "The Julian clan was descended from Trojans..." but then "because Venus mated with Hercules, while a talking eagle said 'go west.'"

No one takes these too seriously, and most historians and pre-historians are united in recognizing the cause - what I mentioned above: the need to seem ancient and Eastern to cultures the Romans conquered that were, well, ancient and Eastern.

In fact, most of the sources for these mythologies were Anatolian GREEK themselves, ie people writing in Greek about Romans to their Greek counterparts.

The only exception perhaps was Virgil, who wrote sycophantic work to extend the history of the Julian clan. See: http://andreaskluth.org/2010/02/11/trojanroman-aeneas-the-historical-big-picture/

Those same mythologies / authors also included divine descent and animist portents. IE, it's not common to find a passage that reads: "The Julian clan was descended from Trojans..." but then "because Venus mated with Hercules, while a talking eagle said 'go west.'"

The fact that myths were expressed in a poetic language and included unbelievable elements, does not make them untrue.

For example, the popular story of the Sack of Constantinople includes many elements involving angels, weeping icons, King Constantine turning to marble, etc. but the basic events are true.

I have no trouble believing that when the Achaeans sacked Ilium in the beginning of the 12th c. BC, a group of refugees may have fled to Italy. When the Turks sacked Constantinople a few millennia later, refugees went to Italy too.

Nothing unbelievable about it.

In fact, most of the sources for these mythologies were Anatolian GREEK themselves, ie people writing in Greek about Romans to their Greek counterparts.

Nonsense, the Trojan origin of part of the Roman nation was universally accepted by the Romans themselves. I can think of no ancient who disbelieved in it.

Defining "paucity" with regards to indigenous Iranian tribes which share R-m269 markers with 100 million R1b,

PLoS Biol. 2010 Jan 19;8(1):e1000285.

"The relative contributions to modern European populations of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers from the Near East have been intensely debated. Haplogroup R1b1b2 (R-M269) is the commonest European Y-chromosomal lineage, increasing in frequency from east to west, and carried by 110 million European men."

Grugni et al. 2012

Alleged "Assyrians" from West Azarbaijan N39- 23%,Alleged "Azeri" from West Azarbaijan N63-12%,Alleged "Persian" from Fars N44-11%,

Lur from Lorestan N50-23%Armenians from Tehran N34-23%

Bakht 46 7% Indo-Iranian (IE) Luri Roewer et al.,

S_Tlsh 18N 44% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.,

Gilaki 43N 23% Indo-Iranian (IE) Roewer et al.

Mazan 46N 15% Indo-Iranian (IE)Mazandarani Roewer et al.

N_Tlsh 43N 19% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.

Indo-Iranian/Indo European

LUR TRIBES:

They are probably the most intact tribes of Iran, retaining their robustness, virility, and tall stature.

Talysh:

Talysh (also Talishi, Taleshi or Talyshi) are an Iranian-speaking people,indigenous to a region shared between Azerbaijan and Iran which spans the South Caucasus and the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea.

Gilaki:

The Caspians have generally been regarded as a pre-Indo-European people.

Dienekes, I agree with many of your suggestions here, BUT there is no reason to believe that the earliest expansions of both R1a (South Siberia and Northern Europe) AND R1b (Southwestern Europe) were in any way already Indo-Europeanized.

In fact, I think it is very likely that they were not. There are R1b-rich (Basque/Iberian) and R1a-rich (Northwest Caucasian, maybe even Burushaski) non-IE speaking groups that might be associated with at least some of those expansions.

Or they could have been part of the same migrating population, but with those groups at the edge (which may have started moving slightly earlier and so escaped from J2 acculturation) not having adopted the “central” language PIE. This situation is actually common throughout history.

R1b bell beakers were probably not Indoeuropeans, since the highest concentration of that haplogroup happens in a small mountain-nation that did not mix with IEs and still keeps its language.

IF bell beaker culture generally corresponds to a non-IE language, then their indoeuropeanization could have happened in Czech Republic or southern Germany: in the Tumulus culture's remains, where kurgans first appear in what was a bell beaker site.

Tumulus Culture develops into Urnfield, which expanded in the exact opposite direction: back into France, Spain and England, developing Hallstatt, Gallic, etc.

@Dienekes: "The fact that myths were expressed in a poetic language and included unbelievable elements, does not make them untrue."

Well, if go that way, the Scotts (in the ancient sense, including the ancient Irish peoples) originally came from greater Scythia according to the Declaration of Arbroath and the Lebor Gabála Érenn (what a nice Kurgan theory evidence!) and the Franks are descendants of the fictive (it's clearly an invention) "Francus/Francion" related to Priam and Hector (and thus Trojans).

It's pretty common in that time to claim some (then considered) prestigious lineage/origin.

"clearly relates to the abundant traditions of eastern origins for the historical groups of Italy"

And yet, except for the Etruscans, archeology would rather see Central Europe as a particular source for archeological elements during bronze age in Italy.

Dienekes, you're just . . . WRONG. Way overstating your case here. I suggest you read some works of classical history, and have the decency to admit your lack of knowledge of it.

Many Roman authors scoffed at the notion of exotic roots for their origin. Read some Cicero. Or some Strabo. Or some Dionysius of Helicarnassus. They were from from in agreement that "Romans were Trojans." Your statement is laughable and innacurate.

And the other poster is correct: My God, are we to believe the foundation legends of all peoples? Read some Jordanes! He postulate that the GOTHS (North Germanic tribe) were Trojans. Native American foundation myths UTTERLY REJECT Siberian ancestry/origin. The Franks tried to claim ancestry from Jesus's followers.

You are sounding a little too Da Vinci code here, or a little selective, or perhaps you ought to leave the classical history to those who specialize in it.

If you knew Dionysius so well, you would know he is the exemplar -- the original -- the case study in a historian of the Roman era, writing in Greek, trying to reconcile the Greeka to Roman rule, by purposefully inventing Eastern origins for them.

From Encyclopedia Brittanica: "His chief object was to reconcile the Greeks to the rule of Rome, by dilating upon the good qualities of their conquerors and also by arguing that the Romans were genuine descendants of the older Greeks."

"Chief object," Dienekes. Do you understand that? He proves my point.

And if you knew him, and had read him, you would also kmow that he utterly rejected your "Etruscans are exotic" theory too.

If you knew Dionysius so well, you would know he is the exemplar -- the original -- the case study in a historian of the Roman era, writing in Greek, trying to reconcile the Greeka to Roman rule, by purposefully inventing Eastern origins for them.

You were the one who brought up Dionysius as someone supposedly contradicting the tales of eastern origins for the Roman nation.

I'm happy to do without him, if you so please, old Cato can't be remotely accused for Hellenophilia, and he accepts both Aeneas and the Spartan origin of the Sabines :)

About north-west Caucasian, not that rich. They are far more full of Y-DNA G (the Adygei are over 50 % IIRC) or even J2.

The simple fact that there are tracks of some _old IE_ input in ancestral Uralic (and loanwords from the whole indo-iranian "spectrum") already undermine this view. Not much J2a in the vicinity of any place widely associated with the place of apparition of proto-Uralic (for R1a1a it's a whole different situation).

Anyway, as for the R1a1a lineages in north-west Caucasian territory, it doesn't seem that relevant if we associate R1a1a and mesolithic populations of Russia/Ukraine.

Even if we consider the possibility of more recent contacts (*), I don't see why it should necessarily imply an actual effective Indo-europeanization.

(*) These R1a1a might even have something to do with the Nal'chik cemeteries populations descendants (north of Caucasus) that seem to have a link (well, at the very least contacts) with what are seen as the early "kurgan" culture on the Volga like Khvalynsk (kurgan and sepulture customs similar to the one of the aforementionned early "kurgan" cultures and also some similar artefacts, all this roughly at the same date (older than 4500 BCE)).

We might even claim an early bronze age link with the Kurgan populations since the Maykop culture is described as "kurganized" by several scholars.

Dienekes: "he accepts both Aeneas and the Spartan origin of the Sabines"

But I don't think any scholar would accept a linguistic link of the Umbrian language (classified within Italic), the language the Sabines were speaking, with the Greek Spartans, so obviously we should take all this with a grain of salt.

"The fountain of its spread was probably a trans-Caspian (?) Central Asian staging point that followed a counter-clockwise route into Europe that spawned the northern (Germanic and Balto-Slavic) groups of Europe and the Indo-Iranians, who remained longer in their BMAC homeland, finally breaking down during the 2nd millennium BC. This would also harmonize with the increasing evidence for complementary R-M17 distributions in Europe and Asia, associated with the Z93 marker."AFAIK there is no evidence for a counter-clockwise spread of M417 into Europe.

AFAIK there is no evidence for a counter-clockwise spread of M417 into Europe.

It is deeply rooted in the Asian phylogeny (see recent paper in Iran).

If one assumed a European origin for this clade, then one would basically have to postulate full clockwise tour of Eurasia, starting from Central Asia (which is really the only game in town where the phylogeny of any R-related lineages can be rooted), going by some route to Europe, then going back east to Asia and down to Central Asia.

In any case, my theory makes a prediction, that all R-related lineages will not be found in early Neolithic (Neolithic=agro-pastoral- not Eastern European "Neolithic" associated only with pottery) Europe, and they will turn up late in prehistory during the Eneolithic and Bronze Ages.

Now, almost ALL credible historians dismiss these. In fact, they are often referred to as "ancient urban legends."

But this is your theory: If you give credit to those legends, how did the Trojans get around so much? (Did they use airplanes or UFOs?) (Is this perhaps why the prophylactic is named after them?)

2. If you discredit the others but give credit to the roman myth, why? Padua was also in Italy. Paris is almost as old. Macedonia was much closer and older.

3. Almost all sources, historical and archaeological, state that Troy had about 8000 fighting men, and that few survived. What is your theory on how a meaningful group of the population got around the besiegers, conjured up a boat, sailed to faraway Italy, and still were of sufficient quantity to influence the gene pool? (And if they weren't of sufficient quantity, which is my point, why are you wasting time on this theory?)

4. Do you believe the other legendary foundation myths of historic and pre-historic Italian city states? For example, the 53 that claim descent from Hercules and his followers? If not, why do you give particular credence to Rome's myth, other than it fits in your theory du jour?

Love the blog, love the science, but you have some questions to answer.

And by the way, I could have accepted this if you stated it as a truism.

"All Western Mediterranean cultures had some interactions and some gene flow with older, more estanlished cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean. This includes Greeks and visitors from ancient Anatolia. Perhaps these interactions were celebrated and memorialized in the collective memory by various foundation myths, one of which is Rome's."

But to state it like you did, honestly, buddy, as a huge fan, has this historian laughing!

Most of the legends you refer to were concocted long after the fact, and many were mere oddities, and not widely accepted.

The tradition about Aeneas is _the_ official Roman origin story, as well as the earliest. Moreover, Bronze Age Italy was clearly connected with the Aegean world (there is the pottery to prove it).

It is quite easy to imagine that a group of Trojan refugees would have sought refuge in Italy -they couldn't exactly go to mainland Greece for obvious reasons- just as the later Romans -in a wonderful reversal of names- would seek refuge in Italy as well when the Ottomans captured Constantinople.

3. Almost all sources, historical and archaeological, state that Troy had about 8000 fighting men, and that few survived. What is your theory on how a meaningful group of the population got around the besiegers, conjured up a boat, sailed to faraway Italy, and still were of sufficient quantity to influence the gene pool? (And if they weren't of sufficient quantity, which is my point, why are you wasting time on this theory?)

It only takes one man to start a successful Y chromosome lineage. Marrying Lavinia and founding a successful line of descendant kings would surely have done wonders for his Y chromosome.

Also, there is no mystery in how Aeneas & co. they escaped Troy; for a "classical historian" you seem to lack some fairly basic knowledge. In the summary of the Iliou Persis (7th c. BC) it is explained how Aeneas anticipated the sack of Ilium after the death of Laocoon and hence was not in the city when the Achaeans returned to capture it. And, of course, their escape could not have been impeded, because, as you must also know, the Achaeans had packed camp and sailed away and no longer controlled sea access.

This will be my last comment on this thread, because it is outdated now, and the ridiculousness has taken on, well, MYTHICAL proportions.

You DO know Dienekes, that "Lavinia" was MYTHICAL, right?

And you do know, even in myths, the city she founded, was not Rome, right?

And as for your comment that "it only takes one Y chromosome to found a nation" -- I will let the public forum judge you on the absurdity of that statement. Technically, it is correct. But in reality, an Anatolian Y-chromosome in Italy could have come from:

It is deeply rooted in the Asian phylogeny (see recent paper in Iran). If one assumed a European origin for this clade, then one would basically have to postulate full clockwise tour of Eurasia, starting from Central Asia (which is really the only game in town where the phylogeny of any R-related lineages can be rooted), going by some route to Europe, then going back east to Asia and down to Central Asia.

The Iranian study didn't type for anything downstream from M17. M417 happened long after M17. AFAIK so far no Asian M417 have been Z645-/Z647-, with all "indo-iranian" being Z93+ (or rather L342.2+. The few M417+/Z93- in Asia (I think one Armenian and one Saudi) have all been Z282+. The only known M417(xZ645) so far are found in North Western Europe. It is possible future testing will improve the picture from Asia, but I doubt it will change the story.

Also the few likely M17xM417 found in Europe appear to be just as likely found in "Western" Europe as in Eastern Europe (a few Spaniards, a few British, a French, a German, a Dutch and a Swiss vs the lone Macedonian).

I think it is a safe bet to say that there are a couple orders of magnitude more Europeans taking DNA tests than there are Iranian or Central Asians. Moreover, SNP discovery is driven by the same type of people (Europeans and 1KG).

I'll wait for real representative samples; no need to see patterns in the clouds until then.

In fact, Gothic is the only East Germanic language that we have text examples for.

That the Goth are from Scandinavia is their "foundation Myth", that meanwhile "most" scientists rate as, indeed "Myth" since there is no archeological signal of Scandinavian migration into Poland but Poland is crowded with tribes claiming Scandinavian legacy.

Saxons, oldest proven settlements, North Germany, Denmark. Linguistical rated as West Germanic claim to be from the northern most regions of Norway.

Franks, oldest proven settlement North-West Germany. Linguistical rated West-Germanic. Claim indeed trojan legacy, but the Saxons claim the Franks had been part of them, when they left Scandinavia....

Trusting in all these foundation myth, led to the 19th century idea that ALL Germanic tribes dwelled in Scandinavia before they rushed south around 500 before Christ and pushed the Celts from GErmany to France and the Illyrians from Poland into the Balkan. Of course in 100% replacement.

Meanwhile we know there is genetical connection between Scandinavia and Germany but a Scenario where a 500BC invasion of Scandinavian tribes led to a 100% population replacement in Germany, is rather unlikely.

I'll wait for real representative samples; no need to see patterns in the clouds until then.but that isn't what your doing when you postulate a counterclockwise movement into Europe.

At any rate even if some M417xZ645 were to be found in Asia, this would still leave open the question of European "phylogentic diversity". Why is there so little evidence of greater "phylogentic diversity" in Russia vs the Balkans, Northern Europe, Central Europe and western Europe?

Why is there so little evidence of greater "phylogentic diversity" in Russia vs the Balkans, Northern Europe, Central Europe and western Europe?

Russians are eastern Slavs, and as such they probably represent a _very_ late expansion in medieval times from the Central European Slavic homeland. We should not confuse them with the people who inhabited the eastern European plain during antiquity, let alone prehistory.

@Dienekes: "Tocharians and the presence of a rich agricultural vocabulary in them"

Sorry, I had missed this bit. I still don't have watched the video with Mallory you advised me to look at (I will watch it) but I think you probably either misunderstood something or maybe his phrasing was ambiguous.

Not only in my Mallory book he clearly states that there were wheat, barley, wheat and peas on Srednyy stog sites, but D. Anthony in "The Horse, The wheel and, Language" says so too, page 273 about the late sredni stog culture:

"The late Sredni stog settlement of Moliukhor Bugor was located on the Dnieper in the forest-steppe zone. (...) The people of Moliukhor Bugor lived in a house 15 m by 12 m with three internal hearths, hunted red der and wild boar, fished, kept a lot of horses and a few domesticated cattle and sheep, and grew grain. Eight grain impression were found among 372 sherds (one imprint in 47 sherds), a higher frequency than at Mikhailovka I. They included emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, millet and barley. The well-known Sredni stog settlement at Dereivka was occupied somewhat earlier, about 4000 BCE, but also produced many flint blades with sickle gloss and six stone querns for grinding grain, and so probably included some grain cultivation. (...) The sredni stog societies on the dnieper, like the other western steppe groups, had a mixed economy that combined grain cultivation, stock-breeding, horseback riding, and hunting and fishing."

--Erratum: the Nal'chik site that I mentionned in a former post didn't have a kurgan.

Russians are eastern Slavs, and as such they probably represent a _very_ late expansion in medieval times from the Central European Slavic homeland. We should not confuse them with the people who inhabited the eastern European plain during antiquity, let alone prehistory.

Well the italic form of r1b seems to originate in anatolia so explain that. Like I said in some other thread troy was not some mythical place back then as it was to western world until relatively recently.

However I don't think you can tie in r1b spread with IE language spread. I don't think you can necessarily even tie it to germanic migrations in roman times, let alone just guess there were some big migrations we don't know about.

Also think you are way off about greek origins. Menelaus was supposed to have red hair, so were thracians. Spartans were militant but had extreme equality in the sexes. Red hair and sex equality and elite warriors doesn't sound like anything you are describing, sorry but I think the huge amounts of j2 and e1b in southern greece came much later than you think.

Fany but those are migrations all at different times and they are MIGRATIONS. Meaning you pick up stakes and every man woman and child leaves. Which makes perfect sense because you have a period of good weather and scandinavia can grow a large population, it turns cold 4-5 years and huge settlements come out. You can do this ad nauseum.

For the burgundians at one point they decided to kill their king and what do they do? They send off to the homeland for a new one, staying in place a couple years for him to arrive! Not only very odd behavior but obviously implies they are not complete vagabonds. Defintely something was going on we just don't know what.

Also while currently scandinavia looks a certain way and has certain haplotypes historically we should not expect it to have very much continuity to even 1000 years ago, and it was hit especially hard by the plague.

I think these migrations were taking place all the time, mostly north-south and south-north as weather changed but most of them were in essence r1b migrating among other r1b.

I wonder why did the authors of this study take their Slavic reference populations only from Northern Croatia, Western Croatia and Southern Poland - why not also from Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Serbia and Bosnia all of which are either geographically closer than or just as close to East Tyrol as Poland and Croatia.

Moreover, recent (2014) publication on R1a haplogroup by Underhill et al. shows that Slovenian subclades of R1a cluster more with Slovakian, Bosnian, Serbian, Ukrainian and Polish with ancestry from Kresy (Ukraine and Belarus), while Croatian subclades are different and cluster with Czech and Southern Polish.

Since East Tyrol was inhabited by Slovene-speakers, reference Slavic populations should be from Slovakia, Serbia, etc., among which - like among Slovenes - the prevailing subclade of R1a is M558.

By contrast among Croats, Czechs and Southern Poles the prevailing subclade of R1a is M458.

Take a look at this chart of major R1a subclades (I made it basing on data from most recent publication by Underhill et al.):

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.